- From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:56:37 -0800
- To: "'Charles Pritchard'" <chuck@jumis.com>, "'Mark Watson'" <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "'Adrian Bateman'" <adrianba@microsoft.com>, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'David Dorwin'" <ddorwin@google.com>
Charles Pritchard wrote: A greatly good amount of logic and good sense. The issue of Content Protection is indeed shrouded with a whole layer of philosophical posturing that needs to be stripped away - we need a technical solution to a real requirement, and philosophy should not get in the way of that. If *you* don't want to use Content Protection, then don't use it in *your* creative process. If *you* are opposed to Content Protection, do not consume content that uses Content Protection - vote with your wallet and your feet. But to throw one's hands up in the air and repeat the "DRM is evil" refrain ignores real world realities, whether you like them or not, whether you agree with them or not. As the writers of technical standards, we should not be making these kinds of value judgments, we should simply be making technical decisions based on technical knowledge. > I'm a big fan of lawyers. I know where they are coming > from, but law is part of the liberal arts, and engineers > lose sight of that. Probably the most insightful comment from this entire thread. Amen! > And CEOs, COOs and CTOs have to weigh the risks. Yep, the dirty secret that drives the web - to paraphrase a former US Presidential campaign from 20 years ago - "It's about the commerce, stupid" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_the_economy,_stupid JF
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 08:57:20 UTC